GMOs y globalización: El ecocidio argentino

Hambre de soja es un reportaje que describe los devastadores efectos que el libre comercio junto con el cultivo de soja transgénica tienen sobre el medio ambiente, la agricultura y la sociedad argentinas. Una prueba más de que los alimentos modificados genéticamente (GMOs) no sólo ponen en peligro la salud humana y contribuyen a la degradación de los ecosistemas, sino que también están contribuyendo a aumentar y controlar un mercado desigual e injusto.

Una vez más, aparece la alargada sombra de las poderosas compañías agroquímicas, en este caso Monsanto, que ha convertido sutilmente a la rica Argentina en uno de sus principales clientes. ¿Cómo es posible que "el granero del mundo" no sea capaz de dar de comer a sus propios habitantes? La Pampa argentina se ha convertido en muy pocos años en una pesadilla para muchos (buena parte de la población rural argentina) y un enorme negocio para unos pocos (los CEOs de Monsanto en EEUU y los grandes terratenientes argentinos).

Para la agroquímica Monsanto, la ganancia es doble, al vender el pack "all-you-need SoyGM+RoundUp": No sólo venden cada año toneladas de semillas de soja transgénica (que los agricultores tienen terminantemente prohibido guardar para la siembra del año siguiente), sino que ésta viene acompañada de su inseparable Roundup (glifosato) o "el herbicida total", que mata todas las plantas excepto la soja genéticamente modificada creada por Monsanto.

Como bien describe el documental, Argentina exporta cada año millones de toneladas de grano que sirven de alimento para el ganado de los países ricos. Millones de toneladas de nitrógeno, fósforo, potasio y otros minerales que son patrimonio natural de aquel país, y que el modelo económico global está arrancando literalmente del suelo, sin que ello se traduzca en un claro beneficio para la mayor parte de los argentinos. Pero no se preocupen, que ya se encargará Monsanto, Bayer o Syngenta de que la producción no decaiga, aunque la tierra sea tan infértil que no crezcan ni los salicornios. Nosotros (los países ricos) les seguiremos comprando el pienso barato para nuestros cerdos y vacas (porque ya se encarga el sistema de que el precio no lo fijen ellos) . Y les seguiremos vendiendo maquinaria agrícola y productos químicos "a un buen precio". Y si no lo pueden pagar, pues ahí se quedan ellos y su érase-una-vez envidiada Pampa.

Quizá con este vídeo, la próxima vez que te vayas a comer unas chuletas o un filete, te pares a pensar el precio ecológico, económico y social que Argentina, entre otros muchos países, está pagando para que esa carne llegue a tu mesa en un menú de unos pocos euros.

Ya ven, el "progreso" nos ha llevado a esta agricultura "moderna", basada en ingeniería genética, pesticidas, herbicidas y fertilizantes. Y no hace falta mirar al cono sur para encontrarla, ni siquiera al otro lado del charco. Murcia es una de las regiones productoras de frutas y verduras más importantes de Europa. Tan cierto como que sobre esos plásticos brilla un generoso sol, por debajo no sólo corre el agua de un difunto río Segura, sino también "los polvos mágicos" que hacen esos tomates y pimientos tan grandes y lustrosos.

Agricultura ecológica. Productos naturales, saludables y sabrosos. Respeto al medio ambiente. Conservación de variedades endémicas para preservar la biodiversidad. Regreso a las prácticas tradicionales sostenibles. Apreciación de la cultura popular rural, del saber del campo, de los mayores. Son sólo algunas formas de cambiar este modelo agrario capitalista, voraz, insaciable, injusto, ávaro, destructor e insostenible.

Lo más importante de todo: Tú tienes la última palabra. Tú votas con cada euro que gastas en la cesta de la compra. Tú decides si apuestas por los alimentos biológicos y productos ecológicos y te decides a apoyar los productos locales.

Education in Spain: Too young to decide

(or how I became an engineer that knew nothing about Economics)

I can't even remember when was the last time I had a class about Economy... I'm not sure I even had one, actually. Maybe it was back in the day, when I was in grade 9th or 10th (3º o 4º ESO), as I remember that our geography teacher used to talk about things here and there, not really following the book. Probably I was too busy thinking about girls, or how to be cool, as most teenagers... Well, to be honest, I think I mostly cared about playing soccer, riding my bike or reading video games and computer magazines... Anyways, I'm getting off the point with these already blurry memories of my dorky years of high school...
I want to make a reference to the Educational System in which I was brought up, about how by making us decide about our future at a very young age, some of us never had a chance to taste a little bit of here and there, and what's worse, how we totally lack (at least I do, and I can tell you I wasn't at the bottom of my class) a good background knowledge about some subjects that I consider essential for any student, for its individual development.
In my opinion, the System experimented with the education that my generation (and some others) received in our years of secondary education (1996-2000). Let's call it by its popular name, "LOGSE" (acronym of that Law of Education). It was very polemical, a lot of people said it was too ambitious, that it was impossible to accomplish its goals because it didn't have enough funding (meaning that there was just not enough money for teachers and materials that were required to meet its objectives of a more "personalized" teaching). However, that's not what I want to discuss here. That law (passed by a PSOE government) was subsequently replaced by the LOCE (during PP government) and recently again by the LOE (now PSOE is back in power), and there is a huge problem in Spain with Education, to the extreme we used to have the highest drop-out rate in the entire EU (at least before the EU of the 25), and probably we are still in the bottom of the list. Again, getting off the point...
This is where I want to get: At a very young age (16, at the end of 4º ESO, our "Junior High"), we Spanish kids who wanted to continue studying in High School had to choose pretty much what we were going to do in our lives. Or at least, make a decision that would most likely influence the rest of our lives. So, that summer, when we signed up for high school, we had to put an X on one of four options, according to the itinerary that we wanted to go into: Humanities, Social Science, Science-Engineering or Health and Earth Sciences. Once in one path, the courses we'd take over the following two years would be very different from the others branches, and the final tests that gave you access to university (we called it "Selectividad" although its real name was P.A.U.) would be about those subjects. So, if you took Science-Engineering, as I did, you'd never have to worry again about certain subjects (Art, Philosophy...) that are not "of relevance" for your "career". (obviously I'm not reflecting my opinion with this. Without diminishing any other discipline, there is one particular subject, Economy, that it should definitely be a part of anyone's curriculum through their high school or university education. In my humble opinion, there is a heck of a lot of people out there (amongst which I'm included) that know very little about this issue. Let's say that, as an example, the stock market is understood by many as something like this :)


If you ever wanted to go into a University program totally out of your specialization, you were more than free to do it (although I don't remember if you were ranked fairly in comparison with the guys from the "right branch", according to your marks). The thing is that, even if you coud do it, once you had studied all those Math, Physics and Chemistry stuff, and passed all those freaking difficult tests, going into Art History, Economics or Business seemed kind of a mistake (considering that you lacked all background knowledge that other people from the "right branch" had).
That said, the way Degrees are designed in the Spanish Universities doesn't fix that gap at all. If you go into Computer Science (CS), that's what you learn. No Bio, no Econ, no nothing. You learn the stuff you need to be a programmer, a database or system administrator, or whatever. And we learn plenty of it, very broad, very general, in many fields, so that we later on are able to specialize within any area of computer science. I appreciate that broad basis in my CS education. But, what about "the other stuff"? You know, the non-CS stuff? Yes, I did learn more about Physics, about Math, because they basics and are required for many things in CS. But, what about Economics? Language? Business? Environment? Sociology?
In Spain, there are no such things as Majors and Minors, double Majors... You just can't graduate in two things (for example, Sociology and Environmental Studies, or Business and Engineering, or Biology and Spanish), but only one. If you want CS, study 5 years. If after that, you want Economics, take another 3 or 5 years. OK that tuition is relatively cheap in Spain (when I studied, around 600/EUR year), but people can't just take 8 or 10 years of their life studying in University (I mean, some people do it, but clearly not the majority)
So, here I am. A PhD student in CS, and pretty much no knowledge at all about things that should be basics. It's true I could have learnt it by myself, yes. I assume my part of guilt. But the truth is that during my University years, I was dedicated full time to my courses, which took my entire time, and sometimes more... And I can tell you I didn't read Adam Smith in my spare time...

This leaves me, as many other people both with and without University degrees, with a very, very minimal knowledge on some important subjects. As I mentioned, one of them is Economy: People talk all the time about the economy, it is on the news, on the electoral campaign... Growth, deficit, inflation, external debt, interest rates, euro/dollar currency exchange, federal reserve, IMF, WB, ECB, supply/demand, WTO, NAFTA, mortgages, loans... All these things, people like my had to learn 'ad-hoc', and most of the times its meaning is not really clear, and neither it is their inter-relationships.
I remember this moment of eager learning during one after-meal, when I had my friend Juan (he studied Business Administration) answering my questions about all kind of economy-related stuff. But I just couldn't draw the big picture from a few of its comments. If, on top of that, you put those few "shadowy issues" we all have heard about, the picture gets really confusing and doesn't make much sense.

What money really is about

This animated video, called "Money as Debt" (by artist Paul Grignon) is one of the most interesting resources that I've come across recently. Definitely, a MUST SEE for everyone, whether you are a graduate Economics student, or a regular Joe Know-Nothing, like me.


(Watch it full screen in Google videos, by clicking on the bottom right button)

También puedes ver el vídeo traducido al español aquí

This video reminds me about this splinter that I've had for some time now, this sensation that I don't know enough about economic issues and that I can't put the pieces together in order to understand the big picture about the world's economy, or "how the system works". I always listen and watch eagerly the few interesting radio conversations/debates about economy. That's why I think this is a great video: Grignon has managed to describe in quite simple terms an issue that somehow perceived as complex, or that just is never considered by the masses. Without assuming anything about the audience's knowledge, like those popular books "xxxx for dummies", this short film criticizes the very basis of our economic system. While I watched it, I began to connect the dots about some other situations that I recalled but I never really understood, i.e. what happened in Argentina a few years ago, "el corralito". So I think it helps people understand a little bit better the past, present and future of our economic system. And maybe even take direct action or at least move your account to an ethical bank.

Spain is different

El Gobierno Rumano ha anunciado recientemente la prohibición del maíz modificado genéticamente, así como su intención de apostar por la agricultura ecológica. Es una noticia importante dado que Rumanía es el estado europeo que cultiva más hectáreas de maíz. Se convierte así en el séptimo estado miembro que prohibe las variedades transgénicas, siguiendo el movimiento de Francia, Hungría, Italia, Grecia, Austria y Polonia.

En cambio, la situación de los transgénicos en España sigue siendo extremadamente preocupante. España es el único país de la Unión Europea que cultiva transgénicos a gran escala. En 2007 se cultivaron unas 75.000 hectáreas de maíz modificado genéticamente. Además, hay una absoluta falta de transparencia, inexistente trazabilidad, descontrol de los cultivos experimentales, y hay decenas de nuevas variedades aprobadas. Al menos, algunas Administraciones Autonómicas así como ciertos municipios han decidido desmarcarse de esta incomprensible postura del Gobierno Central. Así, Canarias ha acordado recientemente declararse como zona libre de cultivos transgénicos, sumándose a Asturias, País Vasco y las Islas Baleares.

Numerosos estudios científicos demuestran que los cultivos modificados genéticamente son una grave amenaza para la biodiversidad y para el suelo. Los "genes pesticidas" no sólo afectan a las plagas sino también a otros seres vivos que son cruciales para la salud de los suelos donde están nuestros cultivos y en general para el equilibrio del ecosistema. Y lo que es más grave, también suponen un peligro para la salud humana. Este estudio sobre el maíz MON 863 (creado por Monsanto y previamente autorizado para consumo humano) revela un alto riesgo debido a los efectos tóxicos en ciertos órganos internos (riñones, hígado) experimentado con animales de laboratorio. El director de este estudio va todavía más allá al señalar que Monsanto conocía datos cruciales sobre los test de orina y éstos que fueron ocultados en sus propias publicaciones. Por no hablar de la falta de rigor en su escrutinio estadístico e insuficientes análisis.

Por otra parte, la contaminación de cultivos naturales por transgénicos es un grave problema que afecta a los cultivos de toda la UE. En 2007 hubo 29 nuevos casos en 23 países. Solamente en España se han denunciado cinco casos de agricultores cuyas cosechas de maíz han sido contaminadas por el maíz transgénico.


Dicho esto, os dejo con las Preguntas frecuentes sobre transgénicos de la página del Ministerio de Agricultura. Ni dictada por los CEOs de Monsanto y Syngenta... Otro día trataré de desmontar las respuestas.

Oil, smoke & mirrors

An interesting video about peak oil and 9/11. Whether you believe or not in the conspiracy theory, this film does remark a few important points about the consequences of peak oil. Regardless of who was behind the terrible events that took place in September 11th, 2001, a great deal of people both in and out the USA have eventually realized that there is no war on terrorism, that neither the Talibans nor Saddam were a credible threat to the American population, and that the so-called "preemptive war" on Afghanistan and Iraq are a result of a long planned foreign policy, targeted to secure U.S. oil supply for the hard years ahead and hence guarantee the supremacy of that nation's economy (and army) over other super-powers (particularly China).

Sequía e incendios forestales

El otro día leí un artículo muy interesante en la revista National Geographic, titulado "Drying of the West", sobre la sequía que afecta a los estados del suroeste de los EEUU (California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado y Nuevo México). Hay bastantes aspectos que me gustaría comentar sobre ese artículo, referentes a la gestión del agua en esa zona, y quizá en futuros posts lo haga, puesto que recuerdan a la situación que vivimos en el sur de España y en particular en la cuenca del Segura. Pero eso será otro día.


En este post me voy a centrar en los incendios forestales causados por la sequía, en el caso del citado artículo por la disminución de las lluvias y nevadas en las Montañas Rocosas, de donde manan espléndidos ríos que van a para al Océano Pacífico, entre ellos el Río Colorado, famoso por su Gran Cañón. Aquí os pongo el fragmento en el que se habla de los incendios, sobre el que quiero reflexionar.

The fires are not only more frequent; they are also hotter and more damaging—though not entirely because of climate change. According to Tom Swetnam, director of the University of Arizona tree-ring lab, the root cause is the government's policy, adopted early in the 20th century, of trying to extinguish all wildfires. By studying sections cut from dead, thousand-year-old giant sequoias in the Sierra Nevada and from ponderosa pines all over Arizona and New Mexico, Swetnam discovered that most southwestern forests have always burned often—but at low intensity, with flames just a few feet high that raced through the grasses and the needles on the forest floor. The typical tree bears the marks of many such events, black scars where flames ate through the bark and perhaps even took a deep wedge out of the tree, but left it alive to heal its wound with new growth. Suppressing those natural fires has produced denser forests, with flammable litter piled up on the floor, and thickets of shrubs and young trees that act as fire ladders. When fires start now, they don't stay on the ground—they shoot up those ladders to the crowns of the trees. They blow thousand-acre holes in the forest and send mushroom clouds into the air.

(Lee el artículo completo aquí)

Como véis, extinguir todos los incendios forestales es una práctica habitual en muchos otros países además del nuestro.
Incendio forestal = Destrucción del ecosistema = Pérdida de biodiversidad (flora y fauna) = Erosión del suelo = Riesgo de desertización = Más cambio Climático, parece ser nuestra línea de razonamiento ante estos eventos, y de ahí que nos parezca acertada la política de "extínguirlos siempre, como sea, cuanto antes" para evitar males mayores.

Sin embargo, como menciona el párrafo anterior (y como siempre sucede), la acción humana que trata de evitar que la naturaleza siga sus propios cauces provoca un desequilibrio en el ecosistema, que a largo plazo, tiene consecuencias ostensiblemente más graves en el ecosistema. Los bosques han estado ahí mucho antes que nosotros, sin que hubiese nadie para extinguirlos, sino el curso de la propia naturaleza (lluvias, orografía del terreno, etc.).

Antes de la intervención humana, el bosque se autorregulaba a sí mismo gracias a los incendios, que "limpiaban" de vez en cuando los arbustos y hierbas secas que crecen a poca altura y arden con facilidad. Así, el fuego se propagaba rápidamente por debajo de las copas, a baja intensidad, permitiendo que muchos árboles sobreviviesen al fuego, de forma que el terreno no fuese completamente arrasado por las llamas. La vegetación superviviente evita la erosión y da pie a una regeneración relativamente rápida del ecosistema, que completa el ciclo de vida de los bosques.

Con nuestra intervención en la extinción de los pequeños incendios, el equilibrio natural del ecosistema se rompe. Al suprimir esos incendios de baja intensidad causados de forma natural, el bosque se vuelve más denso, con montones de vegetación seca, ramas y hojas caídas que, cuando se vuelve a producir un incendio, tienen un efecto de "escalera", haciendo que las llamas se propaguen hasta las copas de los árboles y no sólo a nivel del suelo. El resultado son brutales incendios que arrasan literalmente el terreno sin dejar supervivientes. Nuestra intervención hace que el ecosistema, si logra recuperarse, tarde décadas sino siglos en recuperar el estado que tenía antes del fuego.

La reflexión que hago con este post es que los ecosistemas están en equilibrio con otras fuerzas como el fuego o el viento, y que en su conjunto forman un todo, un sistema que se regula y protege a sí mismo. Por tanto, una política de extinción de todos los incendios no contribuye a una mejor conservación de nuestro entorno, sino que en realidad lo debilita a largo plazo, lo hace más frágil y vulnerable, rompiendo el equilibrio natural.

Obviamente, la mano del hombre no está sólo detrás de la manguera, sino también detrás de la colilla, la barbacoa o, peor aún, la lata de gasolina. Cuando los incendios se vuelven demasiado frecuentes debido a la acción del hombre, los bosques literalmente no tienen tiempo a recuperarse de uno para otro. De los 9.106 incendios de más de una hectárea acaecidos en España en 2005, el 80% fueron causados por la acción del hombre (dato extraído de aquí). Desde luego, con esa premisa, el admirable trabajo de los bomberos y otros grupos de extinción de incendios está más que justificado en estos casos. La gran causa de la alteración del equilibrio natural no está entonces en la extinción del fuego sino en su origen.

Hello and welcome to my blog

Apparently, the blog fever has caught me rather late, considering the millions of blogs that exist nowadays... Well, what can I say about this one? Just that is going to be special... :)

Because this blog is going to talk about something that matters to all of us: the wonderful world we live in, and how all of its living beings (including us, humans) are constantly powered by nature. That's something that I would like everybody to keep in mind at all times, to have it present in every conversation, in every discussion: we are connected to the world that surround us, to the people in our neighbourhood, in our school, our basket team. But also to animals and plants, mountains and rivers, oceans and deserts. Everything plays a role in our everyday life. This is not about us taking care of Nature. We are just another species, a very special one. But we don't protect "the environment", we are a part of it.
Nature has empowered humanity to do great things, and now our civilization needs to realize one thing. In the long run, we can only achieve our full potential as a species by accepting that, as a piece of a greater system, we can't just change its parts freely in order to suit our needs. And yeah, we all know we've managed to screw up a lot of that nature over the past two centuries. But, hey, make no mistake, this is not going to be a apocalyptic story of fear, but a tale of hope.

Among other stuff, it is somehow going to include a collection of experiences that have changed me over the past three years, how I've developed a different perception of the world and how they have raised my appreciation for its beauty and my concern about its problems. I want this blog to be a place where we I can share with you those issues about our Earth that are worrisome, so that we can be aware of the circumstances and from them take action and make a change. One small change after another, one person after another. Raising global awareness, encouraging local communities.

And well, this blog will also be different because it is going to be written in two languages simultaneously (English y Español) or that's my intent so far, and guess what, we all get to passively learn/improve one or the other language. (Al lector hispanohablante, perdón por escribir este primer post en inglés).